Random Thoughts Anew

[apl68]

As a professional trumpeter, I have sounded taps for a few veterans' funerals.  While most of the military bandsmen are snowed under with work, and cannot play for all veterans' burial ceremonies, there is an organization called Bugles Across America which is dedicated to providing buglers for just such occasions.  I personally think that the ersatz electronic "bugle" is a travesty and an insult to the veteran, but our local American Legion post seems to think it is preferable to a live bugler.

It's good to hear that Bugles Across America is trying to rectify the situation.  I guess good buglers are just spread too thin in this vast country of ours.

[Clarino1]

Actually, there are plenty of us around, but many funeral directors and veterans' families do not know enough to ask, or do not know where to ask.  Most of us are glad to do it.  The real problem is that over the years the number of military bands, and trumpeters in those bands, have decreased due to budget cuts, leaving an unimaginable load for the few remaining military trumpeters.  Notice that I said "trumpeters" rather than "buglers."  The military phased out field musicians (the real buglers) in the 1950's, leaving the military band trumpeters to pick up the slack.

[mamselle]

The recorded music is also an issue in churches that can't afford to support an organist for all their services.

On the one hand, (as another professional musician here, but not an organist) it drives me nuts to see a priest or minister put a little tape player up on the altar (as I've seen a couple of them do) and hit the "Play" button for a hymn or recessional piece. I'd prefer what one older fellow (with a sweet Irish tenor) used to do, which was to just start a well-known recessional himself and let the congregation join in with him at the end of the service.

In other places, a small group of instrumentalists and/or vocalists gather and play for services--some gratis, some paid--and there's nary a playback device in sight.

It's a mixed bag in an area with a high CoL, a strong musicians' union or AGO chapter, and many experienced players; it's a different situation in smaller places where only a few people might be able to supply the accompaniment, sing, read music, etc.

One of my students is the choir director in a small church, and when she first arrived (with the pastor's and most of the congregation's blessing) she had to weed out a couple of hyper-controlling members of the group who always wanted to lead, could not sing or play well, and would not accept suggestions or let others in the congregation participate if they weren't friends of theirs.

That's a whole different kettle of fish, but the basic issue--which relates to the issue of live vs. taped funeral players--can be funding, as well. Because these two weren't paid, the congregation and its worship leaders had little control over them.

And I'm guessing that a funeral director or two might have had problems working with someone who--if they simply played their horn, but were not directly a member of a vet's organization--didn't understand the point, or the placement in the service, or something else, and insisted on their own way.

Knowing musicians as I do, I'm sorry to say I could see that happening, as well...

M.

[apl68]

In rural areas like ours pianists are getting scarce.  Mom was already the church pianist at her little church in New Mexico when she was baptized as a teenager.  She had to play for her own baptismal service!  Ever since then she has joked about probably having to play some day for her own funeral.  The way things are going, she just might have to.  She has served as a very good church pianist, by the way.  So much so that I've very seldom had a chance to hear her sing, since she's always up front playing.

[cathwen]

My mother was also a church organist back in the 1920s (yes, I'm old, and she was 42 when I was born).  During points in the service that required background music, she used to play popular tunes, but in a very stately manner with lots of flourishes (think "I'm forever blowing bubbles" and "Barney Google").  It used to amuse her—it was her small rebellion against the very strict denomination—and she didn't think anyone noticed, as no one complained.

[Clarino1]

An organist friend of mine told me, a few months back, "We are a dying breed!"  My sister, who was a church organist from her high school days recently retired from one of the largest churches in the state.  The pastor thought they would be able to replace her easily, and at a lower cost.  It took them more than two years and they had to pay more than twice her salary.  Studying music is "ha-a-a-rd," and kids don't want to do it, and parents are not willing to push them to practice until they get past the point where technique is a struggle.

[mamselle]

True in part; also, many people don't encourage their kids to continue past a certain age since even those who are skilled and want to get better find their time demands for the kinds of high-school level social service activities, AP courses, and regular school work that they will need to show on their college applications.

I do count myself blessed these days that one of my particularly capable students, who faces all of those challenges, is still supported by his parents in wanting to work on hard music (he gets up early, puts on the keyboard earphones, and practices before breakfast, apparently) because I've seen others drop off when the practice time was just too hard to come by and parents were making the kids choose instead of helping them think creatively about how to manage it.*

And as I noted up-thread, more musicians have come to realize that we can't work for peanuts and live at an even mediocre lifestyle, or put up with the capricious nonsense some music venues (restaurants and hotels, I'm looking at you...) get up to.

My uncle, a very gifted musician, still had to work as an insurance adjuster all his life to be sure of having a secure income for his family. My folks never understood that--my mom in particular (no musicians in her family) kept thinking he'd 'sold out' whereas, once I started gigging on my own, I realized why he did it.

I still have to fight that little voice in my head "don't charge too much or they won't want you" that she put there, not knowing the truth, even now...being a member of the musician's local for many years helped, but there are definitely many mixed messages people receive, and give, on that score.

M.

*I'm not a fan of the idea that people need to be 'pushed' to practice--that's usually counter-productive: if I as their teacher give them challenging material that they have a hand in choosing, and hold them to standards that they understand and agree with, they either practice to get the piece in shape so they can move on, or they begin to lag and fall behind and lose interest on their own. I keep in touch with their folks to be sure they're not ill or have something difficult going on in the rest of their lives, but my folks never 'made' me practice, and I've never 'made' anyone I teach, either.

[apl68]

This morning I passed a box littering the side of the street.  It turned out to be a Hefty trash bag box.  Ironic.

[D@mnD@n1el]

If you watch the Jurassic Park and its sequels or any other types of popular dinosaur movies then when you listen to the T-Rex you hear that it roars. But how do we know that the T-Rex roars if they lived approximately 90 - 66 million years which was a much longer time ago before humans even existed so we wouldn't have been able to tell from our POV. Also no recording equipment yet existed that would be able to capture the sounds of the T-Rex's voice. Another thing is that no animals or living creatures who lived at that time and that are still alive now would be able to tell us. Then the fossils are not in good enough condition that they can be studied. Lastly, the closest relatives of the dinosaur today are the chickens and ostriches so for all we know the T-Rex could have clucked like a chicken.

Here is a link from Smithsonian Magazine on the topic: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/t-rex-linked-to-chickens-ostriches-180940877/

[Parasaurolophus]

If you watch the Jurassic Park and its sequels or any other types of popular dinosaur movies then when you listen to the T-Rex you hear that it roars. But how do we know that the T-Rex roars if they lived approximately 90 - 66 million years which was a much longer time ago before humans even existed so we wouldn't have been able to tell from our POV. Also no recording equipment yet existed that would be able to capture the sounds of the T-Rex's voice. Another thing is that no animals or living creatures who lived at that time and that are still alive now would be able to tell us. Then the fossils are not in good enough condition that they can be studied. Lastly, the closest relatives of the dinosaur today are the chickens and ostriches so for all we know the T-Rex could have clucked like a chicken.

Here is a link from Smithsonian Magazine on the topic: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/t-rex-linked-to-chickens-ostriches-180940877/

It certainly didn't roar when hunting, because nothing does. Roaring is for threat displays.

[smallcleanrat]

If you watch the Jurassic Park and its sequels or any other types of popular dinosaur movies then when you listen to the T-Rex you hear that it roars. But how do we know that the T-Rex roars if they lived approximately 90 - 66 million years which was a much longer time ago before humans even existed so we wouldn't have been able to tell from our POV. Also no recording equipment yet existed that would be able to capture the sounds of the T-Rex's voice. Another thing is that no animals or living creatures who lived at that time and that are still alive now would be able to tell us. Then the fossils are not in good enough condition that they can be studied. Lastly, the closest relatives of the dinosaur today are the chickens and ostriches so for all we know the T-Rex could have clucked like a chicken.

Here is a link from Smithsonian Magazine on the topic: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/t-rex-linked-to-chickens-ostriches-180940877/

It certainly didn't roar when hunting, because nothing does. Roaring is for threat displays.

That's always bothered me in films. Animals roaring to make the scene more dramatic, even though it makes no sense for the animal to be roaring in that situation.

[marshwiggle]

If you watch the Jurassic Park and its sequels or any other types of popular dinosaur movies then when you listen to the T-Rex you hear that it roars. But how do we know that the T-Rex roars if they lived approximately 90 - 66 million years which was a much longer time ago before humans even existed so we wouldn't have been able to tell from our POV. Also no recording equipment yet existed that would be able to capture the sounds of the T-Rex's voice. Another thing is that no animals or living creatures who lived at that time and that are still alive now would be able to tell us. Then the fossils are not in good enough condition that they can be studied. Lastly, the closest relatives of the dinosaur today are the chickens and ostriches so for all we know the T-Rex could have clucked like a chicken.

Here is a link from Smithsonian Magazine on the topic: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/t-rex-linked-to-chickens-ostriches-180940877/

It certainly didn't roar when hunting, because nothing does. Roaring is for threat displays.

It's the animal equivalent of police shouting "POLICE!" or "STOP!" long before they're close enough to do anything. It happens all the time in shows and movies, even though it makes absolutely no sense for the exact same reason.
(So, I'd guess it's just a movie-maker's idea of how to create drama, rather than trying to have logical actions of people or animals in the scene.)


That's always bothered me in films. Animals roaring to make the scene more dramatic, even though it makes no sense for the animal to be roaring in that situation.

[downer]

I couldn't spend any significant time with someone who watched FoxNews for more than brief entertainment or to see what the enemy is saying.

But I recently met someone who listens to Joe Rogan regularly. To be honest, I've never listened to him, so maybe I shouldn't judge, but he seems like a freakin idiot from all the coverage he gets. When someone else finds Rogan interesting, I have alarm bells go off. But maybe he is a talented interviewer.

[marshwiggle]

I couldn't spend any significant time with someone who watched FoxNews for more than brief entertainment or to see what the enemy is saying.

But I recently met someone who listens to Joe Rogan regularly. To be honest, I've never listened to him, so maybe I shouldn't judge, but he seems like a freakin idiot from all the coverage he gets. When someone else finds Rogan interesting, I have alarm bells go off. But maybe he is a talented interviewer.

Isn't it kind of ironic to criticize people who are supposedly gullible for listening to Fox News while automatically dismissing someone that you've "never listened to" because of "the coverage he gets"?

If people should actually listen and think before they form judgments, physician, heal thyself.

(As far as Joe Rogan goes, I haven't listened to any complete interview of his because they're really long. I have seen clips occasionally. Since he's one of those people who will basically invite anyone on the show, then of course there are going to be some I agree with and some I don't. That's the way PROPER journalism should work.)

[apl68]

I recently saw an article by a journalist who described how journalists planning to go into dangerous places have courses they can take to prepare.  One is called Hostile Environment and First Aid Training.  It is known by the acronym HEFAT.  Which seems like kind of an unfortunate acronym to me.